SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVSB2330636
NOTICE TO MONIAK CONSTRUCTION CO, an unknown entity; RICHARD MICHAEL MONIAK, individual and doing business as MONIAK CONSTRUCTION CO; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive
(AVISO DEMANDADO):
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
BRYANT IDZIK, an individual; and MATHILDE BERGER, an individual.
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons is served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una repuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entreque una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no le protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar on formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulano que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida si secretario de la corta que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corta le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de referencia a abogados. Si no peude pagar a un a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratu de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov), o poniendoso en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación da $10,000 o mas de vaior recibida mediante un aceurdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corta antes de que la corta pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y la direccion de la corte es):
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino
247 W Third Street, San Bernardino California 92415 San Bernardino District- Civil Division
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante que no tiene abogado, es):
September J Katje
130 S Chaparral Court Suite 140
Anaheim CA 92808
Telephone: 714-400-2962
DATE (Fecha): 10/14/2024
Clerk (Secretario), by BRIANNA RIOS
Published in the SBCS  Rancho Cucamonga on: 11/08/2024, 11/15/2024, 11/22/2024, 11/29/2024

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIV SB 2431851,
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Dana Briones filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Madnis Mae Dalessio to Madnis Mae Briones.
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 12/17/2024, Time: 09:00 AM, Department: S29The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District-Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the  SBCS Upland in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 11/05/2024
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the SBCS  Upland on 11/08/2024, 11/15/2024, 11/22/2024, 11/29/2024

Continue reading →

In a situation remarkably similar, and with multiple parallels, to the events that preceded the Colonies development debacle that cost San Bernardino County’s taxpayers $167 million, the board of supervisors on November 19 considered, but held off on, the sale of 1,252.21 acres of so-called surplus flood control property to a residential developer.
The 1,252.21 acres in question lie within what is now referred to as the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Area, contained within the current Rancho Cucamonga City Limits. The property, set amidst what under normal conditions is a dry alluvial creek, during fall, winter and spring rainstorms transforms into a raging river, was used historically by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to manage stormwater runoff from the San Gabriel Mountains flowing south into both the Day Creek and Deer Creek streams. Over the past four decades, according to Noel Castillo, San Bernardino County’s chief flood control engineer and Terry Thompson, the director of San Bernardino County’s real estate services department, improvements made by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, including the Day Creek and Deer Creek Debris Dam, spreading grounds, and channels, have rendered the property unnecessary for flood management and surplus to San Bernardino County Flood Control District needs.
Nearly 16 years ago, the county board of supervisors, as it was then composed, on February 24, 2009 declared a 1,200-acre portion of the property surplus, thereafter inviting proposals relating to the utilization of the property, preparatory toward the potential sale of the property. At that time, a portion of the flood control property fell within the Rancho Cucamonga City Limits and the majority of the property was situated on unincorporated county land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s sphere of influence.
The intent as enunciated by the county at that time was for the county to arrange an in-house purchase of the land from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District at market value as to be determined by an appraiser, a price estimated at somewhere between $50 million to $80 million. Thereafter, the county was, under the terms of a cooperative agreement with Rancho Cucamonga to jointly plan the development of the area. This represented some degree of complication, as the city prided itself on its relatively higher development standards to all, or most, of the surrounding jurisdictions, and ultimately, it was anticipated, all of the 1,200 acres would eventually be annexed into Rancho Cucamonga. Assuming the conflict in city vs. county standards would be resolved, the joint plan called for the issuance of a request for qualifications to developers willing to compete for an entitlement to build on one of two sub-areas within the 1,200 acres designated as “Area A” and “Area B.” The agreement specified that it would be the City of Rancho Cucamonga which would conduct the public hearings relating to the development proposals and select, i.e., recommend, what were to be deemed the two “best qualified” developers, in order of preference, to the county board of supervisors for the determination of which two development companies would be permitted to operate in each of the sub-areas. If the board rejected either or both of the city’s recommendations, the board would have the discretion to choose any developer, either from among those which had competed or those which had not submitted a proposal. Continue reading →

In a replay of their 2022 match-up and its results as well as a reversal of the early returns on election night, incumbent Greg Wallis has defeated Christy Holstege in this year’s race to represent the 47^th Assembly District.
On Wednesday afternoon, November 20 at which point Wallis had taken a 115,639 vote to 110,658 vote lead, Holstege conceded, doing so on her social media account Wednesday afternoon.
The state of the vote tally this week contrasted with what the initial returns showed on election night and shortly thereafter. Holstege held a narrow lead over the incumbent when the votes from both San Bernardino and Riverside counties, over which the 47th District is spread, were counted on the night of November 5. That lead held through the following day, with the California Secretary of State’s website showing that Holstege was leading 50.2 percent to 49.8 percent just after 5 p.m. on November 6. Over the next three days, however, Wallis (R-Rancho Mirage) closed the gap and surpassed the challenger.
As was the case in 2022, Holstege won by a respectable margin in the more populous Riverside County portion of the district, but was hopelessly outdistanced in San Bernardino County.
The 47th District covers Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Yucaipa, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage and San Jacinto in Riverside County and Yucca Valley, Yucaipa, Redlands and Highland in San Bernardino County
A factor in the election was the particular brand of Holstege’s liberal populism. A sexual assault survivor, she is married to a man and has a child, but celebrates her bisexuality. This has played well in Palm Springs, which has a city council composed entirely of those within the lesbian-bisexual-gay-transsexual-queer community and where she is currently a councilwoman and was formerly mayor. Her orientation and the causes she espoused served her well on the Democratic side of the political divide, enabling her to handily capture the Democratic nomination for Assembly, but her presentation has alienated and galvanized the Republicans and more conservative elements of the district, including members of her own party, against her. Continue reading →

The 59.6 square mile, 224,274-population town of San Bernardino isn’t big enough, apparently, for Rochelle Clayton and Sonia Carvalho.
Over the next several weeks, the city council as it now exists will partially recompose itself by shedding Fifth Ward Councilman Ben Reynoso, Sixth Ward Councilwoman Kimberly Calvin and Seventh Ward Councilman Damon Alexander and take on in their places, respectively, Kim Knaus, Mario Flores and Treasure Ortiz. As the calendar progresses into the first weeks and months of 2025 and the latter three acclimate themselves to their positions of authority, either Clayton will be relieved of her current status as acting city manager and be returned to her original position of assistant city manager or she will be promoted to full-fledged status as the city’s top administrator. If, indeed, Clayton is entrusted with the administration of San Bernardino’s municipal government, the continuation of Carvalho’s now more-than-six-year-long tenure as San Bernardino City Attorney will no longer be tenable. She will be forced to leave the city, taking her firm, Best Best & Krieger, with her.
On the other hand, if the city council, in the aftermath of an outside consulting firm’s ongoing evaluation of the performances of the city manager, city attorney and city clerk, ultimately decides to stay the course with Carvalho, the likelihood that the city council would elect to permanentize Clayton in the city manager role is virtually nil and, moreover, her remaining in the assistant city manager position from which she rose into the interim manager post she now holds would present such an awkward circumstance that she would probably have to depart the city altogether. Continue reading →

As the result of what Assemblyman James Ramos considers his most personal, proudest and meaningful accomplishment, the State of California has already renamed a dozen and will change the names on 31 more locations throughout the state that involve the word “squaw.”
Assembly Bill 2022, authored by Ramos, was passed by both houses of the state legislature earlier this year and signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 25. It goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2025, and requires the term “squaw” to be removed from all geographic features and place names in California.
Generations of Americans saw no offense in the term or its use, believing that it was simply a borrowing from the Algonquian language, in which it means “woman” or a young, unmarried woman, first making its way into American English in the 1630s. It had come to mean woman or, when used in conjunction to a reference to a man, his wife.
Some native American advocates, those in the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation among them, as well as women’s advocates, however, consider the word a racial, ethnic, and gender-based slur, particularly aimed at Native American women, likening it to “cunt.” In his written statement commending his legislative colleagues for the passage of Assembly Bill 2022, Ramos refrained from spelling out the word in full, instead writing ‘sq_’ when referencing it. He said that “Its removal is a crucial step in recognizing the ongoing trauma and oppression that native communities have faced.” Continue reading →

By Dan Walters CalMatters
History will — or at least should — see a $165 billion error in revenue estimates as one of California’s most boneheaded political acts.
It happened in 2022, as the state was emerging from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Department of Finance, based on one short-term spike in income taxes, projected that revenues from the state’s three largest sources would remain above $200 billion a year indefinitely.
Newsom then declared that the budget had a $97.5 billion surplus, although that number never appeared in any documents.
“No other state in American history has ever experienced a surplus as large as this,” Newsom bragged as he unveiled a 2022-23 fiscal year budget that topped $300 billion.
With that in mind, he and the Legislature adopted a budget with billions in new spending, most notably on health and welfare programs and cash payments to poor families.
Within a few weeks, Newsom and legislators learned that real revenues were falling well short of the rosy projections. But the damage, in terms of expanded spending, was done.
Two years later, buried in its fine print, the deficit-ridden 2024-25 budget acknowledged that sales taxes and personal and corporate income tax revenues would fall well short of the $200 billion a year projection, estimating a $165.1 billion shortfall over four years.
The past two years have seen budgets with deficits papered over with direct and indirect borrowing, tapped emergency reserves, vague assumptions of future spending cuts, and accounting gimmicks. For instance, the current budget “saves” several billion dollars by counting next June’s state payroll as an expenditure in the following fiscal year.
This bit of fiscal history is important to remember because the twin 2022 acts of overestimating revenues and overspending billions of nonexistent dollars on new and expanded services continues to haunt the state, as a new analysis indicates.
The Legislature’s budget analyst, Gabe Petek, unveiled his office’s annual overview of the state’s finances Wednesday and it wasn’t a pretty picture.
There’s been a recent uptick in personal income tax revenues thanks to wealthy investors’ stock market gains , some stemming from Donald Trump’s presidential victory. However, Petek said, government spending — much of it dating from 2022’s phony surplus — is continuing to outpace revenues from “a sluggish economy,” creating operating deficits.
“Outside of government and health care, the state has added no jobs in a year and a half,” the analysis declares. “Similarly, the number of Californians who are unemployed is 25% higher than during the strong labor markets of 2019 and 2022. Consumer spending (measured by inflation‑adjusted retail sales and taxable sales) has continued to decline throughout 2024.”
Meanwhile, it continues, “one reason the state faces operating deficits is growth in spending. Our estimate of annual total spending growth across the forecast period — from 2025‑26 to 2028‑29 — is 5.8% (6.3% excluding K‑14 education). By historical standards, this is high.”
Petek’s grim outlook coupled with the more conservative bent of voters, as shown in this month’s election, present a political dilemma for a governor and a Legislature oriented toward expanding government.
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, reacting to the analysis in a statement, indicated that he’s gotten the message.
“We need to show restraint with this year’s budget, because California must be prepared for any challenges, including ones from Washington,” Rivas said. “It’s not a moment for expanding programs, but for protecting and preserving services that truly benefit all Californians.”
Newsom will propose a 2025-26 budget in January, but no matter what he and the Legislature decide, the structural budget deficit will still be there when he exits the governorship in 2027. It will be part of his legacy.
CalMatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters.

A San Bernardino County jury has awarded a former Walmart truck driver $34.7 million, based on what that same jury said was the company’s false accusations against him that he had engaged in fraud and was faking the severity of injuries he suffered after he was rear-ended while making a delivery for the retail giant.
The substantial award, what some in the courthouse on November 19 called exorbitant, came after the jury determined that the company falsely accused the driver of fraud, then firing him while he was on injury leave.
Jesus Fonseca was employed for 14 years as a truck driver for Walmart, operating for most of that time out of the Apple Valley Distribution Center. In 2017, while operating one of Walmart’s trucks on I-15, Fonseca was rear-ended by another semi-truck. Fonseca was put on medical leave the day following the accident. After a relatively short time while he was on injury leave, he attempted, according to his lawyers, to return to work for Walmart, but was unable, to engage in “commercial driving” and further disallowed to engage in “pushing, pulling, bending, stooping and lifting over 5-10 pounds.” Continue reading →